Building Control, small lean-to roof, rafter replacement

stuart45

Building Control are fine as long as you've got the thickness of insulation, enough fixings and a stop batten at the eaves. 

hatt55

WIAWSNB said:

Hatt, could you describe, as fully as you can, what your builder's proposals are? 

And, what is he saying about BC? Is he suggesting it isn't required, or that there's a cheaper and easier way to get the actual result you want, or that he simply doesn't want to get bogged down in such detail for this job, or what? 

I think they're just saying that they wouldn't normally involve BC for this type of job - sort of implying that it wasn't needed, but perhaps only because 95% of people wouldn't bother. I had a few quotes, and I don't think anyone really said that they would worry about that. So here I am, doing the worrying for them! 

This is what i've taken from the quote:

Strip the existing lean-to tiled roof to the single-storey utility room down to wall plate level, store existing tiles.
Remove existing battens, roofing membrane and rafters

Replace the existing rafters with new 200 mm × 50 mm timber
Fit 150 mm polyurethane (PIR) insulation between
Apply new breathable roofing membrane and treated tile battens over rafters.
Re-fit original roof tiles and lead flashing, and install a new verge board.

Fit one ne roof window 
Install new uPVC fascia board and soffit, and re-fit the original guttering.

 
One thing that has popped up from my research today is that the room isn't heated. Its separated from the kitchen from an internal door, and then access to the garden is via the utility room through a upvc door. The utility room has a sink and houses the boiler, fridge/freezer and washing machine. There are fitted units and it was decorated to look like the kitchen, but in itself is unheated. I'm wondering if this makes a difference to what I would need to do, because its actually unheated space anyway.

WIAWSNB

So, they are effectively proposing a full roof replacement? 

It's up to you. It might be worth having a chat with the builder and explaining you'd like to do this 'properly' and have BC sign-off. Ask if this is ok with them, and what extra cost might be required. Just ask them to be frank and upfront with you, so you can make an informed decision.

stuart45

You shouldn't really have to ask if it's OK with the builder. A builder should tell you at the start that the work needs regs. The law has been changed after Grenfell from one year to ten years for an enforcement notice. Having work done without regs can hold up or lose a sale. When buyers find out that works have been carried out they might accept an indemnity policy, but sometimes it puts them off a sale. 
Even if a builder is flexible enough to offer to do a small job without going through Building Control to save you some cash, they should really explain the pros and cons. 

hatt55

So I had a chat to the builder and he was quite reassuring. He was very confident that what they are proposing will be fine in terms of Building Regulations and he could understand if I wanted to get all the paperwork in order. I think it was more of a case of, this is such a routine thing and many people wouldn't bother, that you're just paying a few hundred pounds for something that in reality nobody would ever query. And I sort of get that. But it wasn't a case of they didn't want to involve BC for any particular reason, just that (my interpretation anyway) 9/10 times for this kind of work they homeowners doesn't question it and it isn't a problem.

I think my approach will likely be to submit a Building Notice, paying that little bit extra, but it will hopefully give me reassurance. I am also insulating a floor elsewhere in the house at the same time which should also be pretty straightforward to meet the insulation requirements on and I can then get that signed off too.

Thanks for everyone's input! I did wake up in a bit of a cold sweat this morning because the builder said that by increasing the rafter depth it may have the knock-on impact of lifting the roof up slightly from its existing height. I then had 'PLANNING PERMISSION' flashing before my eyes, but I'm pretty sure that because this should increase the height of the roof by less than 150mm - if at all - then it would be Permitted Development. I'm going to say to the builder that it has to be less than this and the Velux window needs to be flush to the roof profile if necessary.

Gosh. This is why I've really struggled to get anything done. Hopefully all of this complexity is just a product of my mind and soon i'll have a utility room that's actually habitable (in a still a bit colder than the rest of the house kind of way)! 

Section62

hatt55 said:

So I had a chat to the builder and he was quite reassuring. He was very confident that what they are proposing will be fine in terms of Building Regulations and he could understand if I wanted to get all the paperwork in order. I think it was more of a case of, this is such a routine thing and many people wouldn't bother, that you're just paying a few hundred pounds for something that in reality nobody would ever query. And I sort of get that. But it wasn't a case of they didn't want to involve BC for any particular reason, just that (my interpretation anyway) 9/10 times for this kind of work they homeowners doesn't question it and it isn't a problem.
...

When it comes to building control a lot of people have a bit of an odd attitude, which I guess is that not involving them means beating the system somehow.

But BC are in fact like Environmental Health and Trading Standards.  All three have a primary function of ensuring public safety and stopping consumers being ripped off by dodgy traders.  The average consumer has little idea about building standards and pitfalls, so without building control oversight they are relying on the honesty of the builder to do the job properly.  It isn't a good start for that honest relationship if the builder (as they often do) says there's no need for building regulations.

I sometimes wonder whether the folk who are proud of avoiding building control involvement in their project would be quite so enthusiastic to tell everyone they prefer to eat at restaurants where the management have made sure EH inspectors don't know what they are up to.

The bottom line is that it appears solicitors acting for buyers are becoming increasingly keen to check for building control/planning paperwork - often asking daft questions about the lack of documentation for decades-old work which didn't need it at the time.

By getting your paperwork in order you'll be avoiding the risk of difficult questions when you come to sell, and have some assurance that the work the builder is doing will comply with some basic standards.  On a home worth 6-figures, spending a few hundred quid on BC compliance is the obvious thing to do.

hatt55

Putting to one side the pros and cons of insulating the walls at the same time (currently not planned), am I right that if the Building Control Notice is just for upgrading the insulation roof (i.e. the roof is the thermal element), they can't then demand that I add insulation to the walls as well? Because those would be separate thermal elements, which are only going to have some minor plaster repairs and the skirting changed. I suppose for the roof rafters there is also the structural element, but essentially it is still just the roof as a self contained bit of work. 

They couldn't walk in and say, you need to insulate the walls as well, plus you need to an external vent to the cooker hood and those plugs are too close to the cooker etc etc. There are many things wrong with the house in respect to current regulations that I didn't do, but it doesn't just become open season for everything does it? They would only comment on the insulation upgrades and rafters, because that is what the notice would be for?

 

WIAWSNB

hatt55 said:

Putting to one side the pros and cons of insulating the walls at the same time (currently not planned), am I right that if the Building Control Notice is just for upgrading the insulation roof (i.e. the roof is the thermal element), they can't then demand that I add insulation to the walls as well? Because those would be separate thermal elements, which are only going to have some minor plaster repairs and the skirting changed. I suppose for the roof rafters there is also the structural element, but essentially it is still just the roof as a self contained bit of work. 
They couldn't walk in and say, you need to insulate the walls as well, plus you need to an external vent to the cooker hood and those plugs are too close to the cooker etc etc. There are many things wrong with the house in respect to current regulations that I didn't do, but it doesn't just become open season for everything does it? They would only comment on the insulation upgrades and rafters, because that is what the notice would be for? 

S62 will hopefully confirm, but I suspect they are treated as different entities. 

A new roof is a new roof, so should comply. 

Are there 'exterior-quality' doors separating your house from this lean-to? If so, there is no requirement I am aware of to add internal insulation, unless and until you wanted to have this room 'certified' as a habitable space. But currently, you can call it a 'conservatory' or 'garden room'?

hatt55

WIAWSNB said:

hatt55 said:

Putting to one side the pros and cons of insulating the walls at the same time (currently not planned), am I right that if the Building Control Notice is just for upgrading the insulation roof (i.e. the roof is the thermal element), they can't then demand that I add insulation to the walls as well? Because those would be separate thermal elements, which are only going to have some minor plaster repairs and the skirting changed. I suppose for the roof rafters there is also the structural element, but essentially it is still just the roof as a self contained bit of work. 
They couldn't walk in and say, you need to insulate the walls as well, plus you need to an external vent to the cooker hood and those plugs are too close to the cooker etc etc. There are many things wrong with the house in respect to current regulations that I didn't do, but it doesn't just become open season for everything does it? They would only comment on the insulation upgrades and rafters, because that is what the notice would be for? 

S62 will hopefully confirm, but I suspect they are treated as different entities. 

A new roof is a new roof, so should comply. 

Are there 'exterior-quality' doors separating your house from this lean-to? If so, there is no requirement I am aware of to add internal insulation, unless and until you wanted to have this room 'certified' as a habitable space. But currently, you can call it a 'conservatory' or 'garden room'?

I think that having written this post, I did a bit more research and it suggests that yes, it would be treated separately. I suppose that sort of makes sense because I don't imagine very many Victorian houses have everything to current spec so you could never let a BC officer in or would have to do a full renovation as soon as they cross the threshold. 

In respect to the door - sadly its just an internal door. The upvc external door is in the utility room itself to get out into the garden, but between the kitchen and utility its just a standard door. So I guess they can't be classed as thermally separate. It may have been triggered by reading something earlier in this thread, but I did briefly consider getting a decent spec door which would then make the utility room separate and all of this stress would go away!

WIAWSNB

hatt55 said:

I think that having written this post, I did a bit more research and it suggests that yes, it would be treated separately. I suppose that sort of makes sense because I don't imagine very many Victorian houses have everything to current spec so you could never let a BC officer in or would have to do a full renovation as soon as they cross the threshold. 

In respect to the door - sadly its just an internal door. The upvc external door is in the utility room itself to get out into the garden, but between the kitchen and utility its just a standard door. So I guess they can't be classed as thermally separate. It may have been triggered by reading something earlier in this thread, but I did briefly consider getting a decent spec door which would then make the utility room separate and all of this stress would go away!

I'm pretty sure you are overthinking this

By all means, provided it isn't prohibitively more costly, or adds significantly onerous conditions, have your roof done under a BC building warrant. That is always good, and it's one step towards making that room a habitable space. 

Don't worry about the use of an internal door - no-one can force you to retrospectively 'conform' with current regs like that. That lean-to has been there for donkeys, and was always thus. It's poorly insulated, but - hey - so are countless such 'lean-tos' around the country.

The BCO may point out, if so minded and with best intentions, other improvements whilst he's there, but will - should - be impressed that you are doing stuff properly, and will be assured by your commitment. 

You will add further insulation as and when.